December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: SurfWatch
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I plan to taper off on all responses to this thread about SurfWatch and ratings services. Various sides have expressed their opinions about what courts and governments will demand, and others respond by saying, "I disagree. They can pass a law..." or "I disagree. The government is powerless," etc. At 11:25 PM 3/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > Given various anti-obscenity laws that the idiot Supreme Court has >already found constitutional (including those against providing "indecent" >material to minors), I wouldn't depend on the First Amendment. Here are some Finding something to be obscene, or treasonable, or actionable in other ways, ex post facto, is significantly different from a requirement _in advance_ that words be "rated." (Before anyone cites the MPAA movie ratings, an old war horse often trotted out as proof that the government requires ratings, let me again point out that the MPAA ratings are not required by the government and that the MPAA is nominally a private organization. Now, what the government _might_ have done back in the 60s had the movie industry not acted to "police themselves" is unknown to us. The Supremes might have overturned any mandatory rating on movies, just as they almost certainly would for words.) In the terms of the lawyers--from what I picked up during my time on the Cyberial list--a requirement that words be rated before they can be distributed would not pass Constitutional muster. This does not mean that one's words will not trigger prosecutions, lawsuits, treason trials, etc. What it means is that "prior restraint" is frowned upon (recall "The Progressive" H-bomb case of about 15 years ago, where a court subjected this magazine to prior restraint...a rare occurrence, later overturned. A more recent case involves "Business Week," and is still unresolved). >scenarios under which rating services could turn into bona-fide censorship >(by the governmental limiting of information access definition): > A. The government threatens ISPs with more direct censorship (a la the >CDA) unless they force their users to rate their pages with some such service. See above. Books are not rated. Even the "parental advisories" on CDs are ostensibly voluntary (granted, because noises were made about government ratings...but the point remains that a good, solid Constitutional test has not yet happened). > C. The government (a la the V chip) requires a rating system, or one >of a collection of "government-approved" rating systems, for all web pages. By the way, who does the rating in this scenario? As others have also noted, if I am rating my own pages, and rate them as "suitable for all ages," but Jesse Helms disagrees, what charges can be filed? That I was not a good enough judge of the material? That my opinions differed from Senator Helms'? "Voluntary self-rating" runs into problems, such as this example. One is left with ratings by _others_, e.g.. ratings boards, and even then there are variations of this same problem. The "Lesbian Alliance" is going to have different ideas of what children should be exposed to than the "Christian Crusade" will ideas about. Who is right? ("What is truth?") So, one is then left with government censors. And the Constitution is pretty clear about this. > D. The government in a country such as China uses rating systems to >help them filter. Doesn't have much to do with _my_ words or pages. It ain't the business of the U.S. court system--which is what we're talking about here--to worry about what some Maoists think is proper for young cadres to read. >(They do not get around the question of whether parents should be permitted to >restrict children's information access on grounds such as obscenity at all. >Given that no harm has ever been proven from children's viewing such material >(_possibly_ unlike the data on violence, although that is quite disputable and >not an argument for censorship), whether parents properly have that degree of >sovereignty over their children is questionable. Children are not the property >of their parents. I disagree with the overall conclusions of this line of reasoning. (Though the "children are not the property of their parents" point is heavy phrasing, and hard to take issue with directly, due to the language.) I don't know if exposure to sex is good or bad. I see a lot of aimless souls. I see a lot of AIDS. I'm unpersuaded that the proper solution is just to teach "safe sex" and proper condom-donning behaviors to fourth graders. If my neighbor wants to expose her children to this, that's her business. In any case, while children are not for their parents to do with as they please, a reasonable Schelling point has been that I will not force other parents to expose their children to the teachings of Cthulhu if they will not demand that my children sit through propaganda tapes about the joys of homosexual sex. The status of children in a free society is a thorny issue, but I reject the increasingly-prevalent notion that society knows what's best and the government will decide what influences can be used with children. A society which takes away this parental choice is a terrible society. I see much of the debate about violence and sex in society and in the media as being this kind of "battle for the hearts and minds" of children. I don't want some sociologist telling me that "Terminator II" is "bad" for my child but that "The Story of O" should be mandatory for my 11-year-old to watch. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: Another Motivation for the CDA (Federal Sentencing Guid
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-03-09 03:42:04 EST, you write: >And the guys who just got busted for having fertilizer, diesel oil, >and drugs on their farm had a whole three ounces of marijuana and >personal-use quantities of crank. Maybe they were planning to blow up >buildings rather than stumps; but the Feds are trying to paint them >as max evil just to build up their case. Who says they were going to blow anything up? It is perfectly legit for farms to have large quantities of fertilizer around--they use it all the time. Same with diesel fuel--what are they supposed to run the tractors and combines with? Dog piss? DUHHHH! As far as having the instructions for mixing them to go boom, who the hell made that a crime? You could bust most of the farmers in this country if you criminalize simultaneous posession of fertilizer and diesel fuel. Did these people ever actually mix any of the fert. and fuel together? Did they threaten to blow up anything? This whole situation is nothing more than jackbooted thugs getting a rush by stomping on people. FTJBT Jonathan Wienke

1 0

Re: Encrypted Communications Privacy Act of 1996 (fwd)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> S 1587 IS >> 104th CONGRESS >> 2d Session >> To affirm the rights of Americans to use and sell encryption >> products, to establish privacy standards for voluntary escrowed >> encryption systems, and for other purposes. >> IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES >> March 5, 1996 >> Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. BURNS, Mr. DOLE, Mr. PRESSLER, and Mrs. MURRAY) ^^^^^^^^ Interesting that Bob Dole is supporting it! It's certainly not a perfect bill, and will presumably be less perfect by the time it's passed. But it's a nice alternative to Clinton, who was happy to buy in to the previous Administration's anti-crypto efforts. (I'll presumably be voting for Harry Browne or some other Libertarian, unless I get fed up and vote for Frank Zappa or Hugh Romney; the Democrats can look me up some year if they decide to run a genuine liberal :-) #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

keystroks
by sakarias＠tripnet.se 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there anbody out there happens to now a keystroke recorder thats record keystroks from dos to windows. please contact me if you know. "It is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges subsistr here and there, in the deserts which are no lionger those of the Empire, but our own. The desert of the real itself." J. Baudrillard

2 1

Someone in a goverment with something close to the right idea...
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, he at least has part of the right idea. -Allen +++++++++++++++++++ Reuters New Media [...] _ Friday March 8 2:41 PM EST _ Malaysia Is Against Curbs On Internet Debate KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Censoring Internet access will not solve concerns over privacy and individual freedom in cyberspace, Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said. "Censoring the Internet is not the solution. Simply closing our doors will not only hurt us but push us back in the race for growth and prosperity," he said in a speech at the launching of the Internet World '96 conference (http:/www.asiaconnect.com.my/asia-internet/) Countries concerned with such issues should instead utilize the Internet to reinforce social responsibility, he added. "Let us not forget that an informed citizenry is also a responsible citizenry," Anwar said. Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved

2 1

rhetorical trickery
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I noticed a rhetorical trick/trap that I've seen a lot lately, in the recent article posted about Phil Zimmermann. there is an infamous case of a child pornographer or pedophile in California that is sometimes cited by law enforcement representatives as a good example of the evils of encryption: supposedly he encrypted his diary and it couldn't be unlocked by them. this was mentioned in the article. but I have a question: how did they know it was his diary? I've noticed that people tend to often make conceptual leaps like this that are wholly unjustified. it is easy to get their opposition to bite down on the trap, when they start arguing about things like "well, everyone should be free to encrypt whatever they like". the next time you run into someone using arguments with words like "criminals" in it, ask them, "how do you know they are criminals"? when you use their terminology, and argue in terms of it, you have almost already lost the argument. there is a big mindset in law enforcement to see "suspects" as "criminals". but that is mistaking means and ends. the process identifies criminals in the end, after a trial, but at no prior date. here's another example: I was watching a talk show in which the recent Israeli bombing was discussed by a bunch of very obviously frenzied commentators who were calling for Arafat's head on a stick. one of them insisted that our government had given the names of the involved terrorists to Arafat some time ago and that he did nothing. well, the question is: how do we know those names on the list are the actual terrorists? how do we know Arafat did nothing? but the other commentators were totally lost this basic rhetorical trap. they said, "well, assuming what you say is true, then... blah blah". but the obvious question is, "how do we know these names mean anything"? there is an amazing tendency in our culture in elsewhere not to question authority. when we see some law enforcement agent at a press conference, and they talk about "criminals", the press immediately latches onto the terminology and asks things like "when will they be caught"? etc. instead of, "how do you know they are culpable?" in crypto arguments as well where there is a lot of emotional rhetoric, I have noticed people have a tendency to try to debunk things that require no debunking, such as the FUD that has been sown over that infamous CA pedophile. the test is avoiding tricky rhetorical traps. there are some battles that don't need to be fought. just remember that calm, deadly retort whenever you hear someone getting excited, and ask them, "how do you know they are his diaries?"

3 2

Re: FCC & Internet phones
by Mutant Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- t byfield wrote: [..] > doubt the situation for bureaucratic rule-mongering would be much > different. The WP article said that has ACTA has "asked the [FCC] to stop > this kind of communications and study how to regulate it," probably--and > not surprisingly --in that order. I noticed they complainted about IPhone "giving away our product for free" or something like that. Bad implications. Imagine MS going after the FreeDOS people, or Novel or AT&T or whoever owns Unix now going after Linux or the FSF/GNU... [..] > Q: Is it practically possible to find netphone traffic on a > generic network at any level above the source and target addresses? Good question. - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMUI89CoZzwIn1bdtAQFXBAF/RSoygg/szTsrtI+Ds512YDV3KswRP43r 4HfgV+PHex3JqnhOWNbWuNga05EsFDJp =EcBe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 4

Index of Coincidence
by Marc North 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm new to the mailing list, but I have grep'd tcmay's CP-FAQ and all related FAQs for this, but have yet to find anything. I'm looking for detailed information on a statistical tool to aid in cryptanalysis called an "index of coincidence". I would appreciate it if someone could please explain what this is, how one builds such an index against a given ciphertext, and how it is valuable in the cryptanalysis of said ciphertext. Many thanks, Marc -- .--------------------------------------------------------. | Marc North <*> mnorth(a)netcom.com <*> San Jose, CA. | `--------------------------------------------------------'

3 2

re: FCC & Internet phones
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>"Long-Distance Dueling. Free Dialing Via Internet Faces a Challenge From >Small Phone Firms." You seem to forget that the Internet is just about the *only* electronic communications media not controlled/licensed by the FCC in the US. The FCC also prohibits use of cryptography by those with amateur licenses. Warmly, Padgett

5 4

Re: Cryptanalysis
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:57 PM 3/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 9-MAR-1996 12:05:04.70 > >>There are very good reasons to say little about "conventional >>cryptanalysis": it just doesn't matter much with modern ciphers, such as >>public key systems. Modern ciphers don't fall to conventional attacks based >>on word frequency, pattern analysis, etc. > > I realize that this may also be considered an out of date subject, >but what's a good reference for codes as opposed to cyphers (other than >the one reference in the Cyphernomicon which includes "codes" in its title)? The usual: Kahn, Denning, and some of the old Dover Press books on crypto. Also, Herbert Zim wrote a nice little book about 40-50 years ago on codes. Some of the standard crypto textbooks will of course have more pointers to cryptanalysis. (Not to sound harsh to Allen, but why would anyone ask here on the list for recommendations to such a standard subject when Schneier, Garfinkel, Denning, etc. all have books listed?) Again, the reason stuff like "word frequency counts" and "index of coincidence" notions are so seldom involved in modern crypto--which is what all public key systems involve--is that they are essentially of no use. There is no point in doing statistical analysis of patterns on the ciphertext in an RSA or similar encryption. (Because any "patterns" discovered are meaningless.) And there are so many interesting areas to pursue with using and furthering modern crypto, that I just can't understand how people can think that classical cryptanalysis is useful. It might be fun, as a hobby, but it has no bearing on modern systems. (Well, I'm exaggerating a bit. I suspect that classical cryptanalysts at the NSA or GCHQ might have some insights into some problems with modern systems, such as traffic analysis. So I shouldn't say there is "no use" for it. But I hope you all understand my point in general. It is unlikely in the extreme that anyone who fools around a little with classical cryptanalysis will have anything important to contribute as a result of this.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1